I do something like Wirraway Ace since I find it annoying and troublesome that the Japanese can compete on any terms whatsoever. I roll one twenty-sided dice three times, take the largest number divisible by three, square it, and divide by itself. The resulting number is then implemented from this table:

1. Japanese player realizes he is in over his head on turn one and agrees to surrender. 2. Play John III and he agrees that no Japanese ship had a captain capable enough to take her out of the Sea of Japan. 3. Play Miller and he agrees to pose in his BVDs with Lady Gaga. 4. Play Chez Da Jes, implement Fortress Palembang, and he agrees that Japan cannot use ships to transport any fuel from any port more than three hexes from Tokyo. 5. Play Q-Ball and lull him into an acute state of boredom by withdrawing all ships, aircraft and ground units to Capetown until June 15, 1944. Accept his withdrawal from the game by January 1, 1943. 6. Play Panzerjaeger Hortlund, pretend that I am Nemo, and invade Hokkaido with the entire Australian OOB on February 28, 1942. 7. Play Poultry Lad and pretend that I am left-leaning in my politics. 8. Play Bullwinkle and pretend that I am right-leaning in my politics. 9. Play Cap Mandrake under agreement that he cannot say anything about women and their alluring, lusty, promiscuous tendencies. 10. Play Cribtop on condition that no lawyer terms shall be used.

We have debated this before. I merely point out it is a game that pits a minor industrial power against the World's major industrial power, the World's most populous country, a preeminant naval power and a host of Allies. That the Japanese chose to make war in these circumstances does not change the nature of the game in my view. I do recommend some constraints to Japanese research in PDU on games. I limit myself to research models of aircraft sequentually and each model must be built and used in combat.

I do something like Wirraway Ace since I find it annoying and troublesome that the Japanese can compete on any terms whatsoever. I roll one twenty-sided dice three times, take the largest number divisible by three, square it, and divide by itself. The resulting number is then implemented from this table:

1. Japanese player realizes he is in over his head on turn one and agrees to surrender. 2. Play John III and he agrees that no Japanese ship had a captain capable enough to take her out of the Sea of Japan. 3. Play Miller and he agrees to pose in his BVDs with Lady Gaga. 4. Play Chez Da Jes, implement Fortress Palembang, and he agrees that Japan cannot use ships to transport any fuel from any port more than three hexes from Tokyo. 5. Play Q-Ball and lull him into an acute state of boredom by withdrawing all ships, aircraft and ground units to Capetown until June 15, 1944. Accept his withdrawal from the game by January 1, 1943. 6. Play Panzerjaeger Hortlund, pretend that I am Nemo, and invade Hokkaido with the entire Australian OOB on February 28, 1942. 7. Play Poultry Lad and pretend that I am left-leaning in my politics. 8. Play Bullwinkle and pretend that I am right-leaning in my politics. 9. Play Cap Mandrake under agreement that he cannot say anything about women and their alluring, lusty, promiscuous tendencies. 10. Play Cribtop on condition that no lawyer terms shall be used.

So...you always do one of the bolded options? Seems a shame to limit yourself with so many other great ones on that table!

To be clearer, the only strategy I consider as an Allied player is how to make the early war fun enough for the Japanese player so he will be willing to play the 43-45 meatgrinder. It is a game, and it must be fun for both players or it will not continue...

I do something like Wirraway Ace since I find it annoying and troublesome that the Japanese can compete on any terms whatsoever. I roll one twenty-sided dice three times, take the largest number divisible by three, square it, and divide by itself. The resulting number is then implemented from this table:

1. Japanese player realizes he is in over his head on turn one and agrees to surrender. 2. Play John III and he agrees that no Japanese ship had a captain capable enough to take her out of the Sea of Japan. 3. Play Miller and he agrees to pose in his BVDs with Lady Gaga. 4. Play Chez Da Jes, implement Fortress Palembang, and he agrees that Japan cannot use ships to transport any fuel from any port more than three hexes from Tokyo. 5. Play Q-Ball and lull him into an acute state of boredom by withdrawing all ships, aircraft and ground units to Capetown until June 15, 1944. Accept his withdrawal from the game by January 1, 1943. 6. Play Panzerjaeger Hortlund, pretend that I am Nemo, and invade Hokkaido with the entire Australian OOB on February 28, 1942. 7. Play Poultry Lad and pretend that I am left-leaning in my politics. 8. Play Bullwinkle and pretend that I am right-leaning in my politics. 9. Play Cap Mandrake under agreement that he cannot say anything about women and their alluring, lusty, promiscuous tendencies. 10. Play Cribtop on condition that no lawyer terms shall be used.

So...you always do one of the bolded options? Seems a shame to limit yourself with so many other great ones on that table!

There's always a math geek . . .

If I read the instructions correctly, Canoerebel only does one of those three options less than a third of the time.

I do something like Wirraway Ace since I find it annoying and troublesome that the Japanese can compete on any terms whatsoever. I roll one twenty-sided dice three times, take the largest number divisible by three, square it, and divide by itself. The resulting number is then implemented from this table:

1. Japanese player realizes he is in over his head on turn one and agrees to surrender. 2. Play John III and he agrees that no Japanese ship had a captain capable enough to take her out of the Sea of Japan. 3. Play Miller and he agrees to pose in his BVDs with Lady Gaga. 4. Play Chez Da Jes, implement Fortress Palembang, and he agrees that Japan cannot use ships to transport any fuel from any port more than three hexes from Tokyo. 5. Play Q-Ball and lull him into an acute state of boredom by withdrawing all ships, aircraft and ground units to Capetown until June 15, 1944. Accept his withdrawal from the game by January 1, 1943. 6. Play Panzerjaeger Hortlund, pretend that I am Nemo, and invade Hokkaido with the entire Australian OOB on February 28, 1942. 7. Play Poultry Lad and pretend that I am left-leaning in my politics. 8. Play Bullwinkle and pretend that I am right-leaning in my politics. 9. Play Cap Mandrake under agreement that he cannot say anything about women and their alluring, lusty, promiscuous tendencies. 10. Play Cribtop on condition that no lawyer terms shall be used.

So...you always do one of the bolded options? Seems a shame to limit yourself with so many other great ones on that table!

There's always a math geek . . .

If I read the instructions correctly, Canoerebel only does one of those three options less than a third of the time.

He should be doing one of them 38.5875% of the time.

It's not often that I get to break out the math (what fun!), whether in life or in this game, so I suppose the label is appropriate.

Being that I spend a large fraction of my life playing with numbers...

Canoe said I roll one twenty-sided dice three times, take the largest number divisible by three, square it, and divide by itself.

Assuming the antecedent for "itself" is the "largest number divisible by three" (as opposed to the squared number), the squaring and dividing is an identity function. Thus, he is basically taking the largest number divisible by three.

To restrain Mandrake from discussing lusty women, he must roll at least one nine, and no multiples of three larger than 9. For exactly one 9, the probability is P(1 nines, no large x3) = 3[combinations] * 1/20 [p of a 9] * (16/20)^2 [p of the other two rolls being not a 9, 12, 15, or 18] = 0.096 Likewise, P(2 nines, no larger x3)= 3 * (1/20)^2 * 16/20 = 0.006 P(3 nines, no larger x3) = 1 * (1/20)^3 = 0.000 (rounding) So he plays Mandrake 10.2% of the time.

Without going through the rest of the math, one can see by inspection that the probability of invading Hokkaido (option 6) or seeing miller in his BVDs (option 3) has to be smaller than this probability. The first two terms stay the same, but the 16/20 factor for "a different number which is a (non-multiple of 3) (inclusive-or) (is smaller)) decreases. Therefore, the probability of (any of these options) is going to be less than 3*10.2%, i.e., less than 30.6%.

So I believe Wirraway_Ace is correct in saying that Canoerebel does one of these options less than a third of the time, with all the usual caveats (Canoerebel is telling the truth, the die is fair, etc.). Although I acknowledge some possibility of error. I showed you mine, now you show me yours

Being that I spend a large fraction of my life playing with numbers...

Canoe said I roll one twenty-sided dice three times, take the largest number divisible by three, square it, and divide by itself.

Assuming the antecedent for "itself" is the "largest number divisible by three" (as opposed to the squared number), the squaring and dividing is an identity function. Thus, he is basically taking the largest number divisible by three.

To restrain Mandrake from discussing lusty women, he must roll at least one nine, and no multiples of three larger than 9. For exactly one 9, the probability is P(1 nines, no large x3) = 3[combinations] * 1/20 [p of a 9] * (16/20)^2 [p of the other two rolls being not a 9, 12, 15, or 18] = 0.096 Likewise, P(2 nines, no larger x3)= 3 * (1/20)^2 * 16/20 = 0.006 P(3 nines, no larger x3) = 1 * (1/20)^3 = 0.000 (rounding) So he plays Mandrake 10.2% of the time.

Without going through the rest of the math, one can see by inspection that the probability of invading Hokkaido (option 6) or seeing miller in his BVDs (option 3) has to be smaller than this probability. The first two terms stay the same, but the 16/20 factor for "a different number which is a (non-multiple of 3) (inclusive-or) (is smaller)) decreases. Therefore, the probability of (any of these options) is going to be less than 3*10.2%, i.e., less than 30.6%.

So I believe Wirraway_Ace is correct in saying that Canoerebel does one of these options less than a third of the time, with all the usual caveats (Canoerebel is telling the truth, the die is fair, etc.). Although I acknowledge some possibility of error. I showed you mine, now you show me yours

This History major says CR misspoke., He meant a twenty-ONE-sided die. So, do it all again, please.

Being that I spend a large fraction of my life playing with numbers...

Canoe said I roll one twenty-sided dice three times, take the largest number divisible by three, square it, and divide by itself.

Assuming the antecedent for "itself" is the "largest number divisible by three" (as opposed to the squared number), the squaring and dividing is an identity function. Thus, he is basically taking the largest number divisible by three.

To restrain Mandrake from discussing lusty women, he must roll at least one nine, and no multiples of three larger than 9. For exactly one 9, the probability is P(1 nines, no large x3) = 3[combinations] * 1/20 [p of a 9] * (16/20)^2 [p of the other two rolls being not a 9, 12, 15, or 18] = 0.096 Likewise, P(2 nines, no larger x3)= 3 * (1/20)^2 * 16/20 = 0.006 P(3 nines, no larger x3) = 1 * (1/20)^3 = 0.000 (rounding) So he plays Mandrake 10.2% of the time.

Without going through the rest of the math, one can see by inspection that the probability of invading Hokkaido (option 6) or seeing miller in his BVDs (option 3) has to be smaller than this probability. The first two terms stay the same, but the 16/20 factor for "a different number which is a (non-multiple of 3) (inclusive-or) (is smaller)) decreases. Therefore, the probability of (any of these options) is going to be less than 3*10.2%, i.e., less than 30.6%.

So I believe Wirraway_Ace is correct in saying that Canoerebel does one of these options less than a third of the time, with all the usual caveats (Canoerebel is telling the truth, the die is fair, etc.). Although I acknowledge some possibility of error. I showed you mine, now you show me yours

I didn't take into account any of the other results as only a roll of 3, 6, or 9 will give a valid result on his list. The probability that he rolls a 3, 6, or 9 on a 20-sided die is 3/20 or 15%. Therefore, he will not play any games 85% of the time on any given roll. However, since he rolls 3 times we need to evaluate .85^3, which is 61.4125% of the time. 1 - .614125 = .385875. I don't want to work out the individual probabilities, but shouldn't they all add up to that 38.5875%?

I have not seen the discussion on the variation of scenario's and home rules. I might propose that the Moose's knife fight game scenario #2 is a much different strategy than one with the stardard homes rules to try and fix WitP. [No 4E's below 10,000 .. or the greyjpy game of 20,000, no 4E ground attacks etc ..] Then there is scenario #1 where the Boise is an interesting intervention and the Allies find the inevitable hole early ...

I have not seen the discussion on the variation of scenario's and home rules. I might propose that the Moose's knife fight game scenario #2 is a much different strategy than one with the stardard homes rules to try and fix WitP. [No 4E's below 10,000 .. or the greyjpy game of 20,000, no 4E ground attacks etc ..] Then there is scenario #1 where the Boise is an interesting intervention and the Allies find the inevitable hole early ...

Let me just add that "my" game is "our" game. Mike, aka 1EyedJacks, agreed to my proposal and has played the game straight up. No whining, doing innovative things to match my attempts to do the same. Neither of us has uttered "gamey" or needed to. And I have bombed with 4Es from 1000 feet to 30,000.

You don't need HRs to have a fine game. You just need a fine opponent.

Being that I spend a large fraction of my life playing with numbers...

Canoe said I roll one twenty-sided dice three times, take the largest number divisible by three, square it, and divide by itself.

Assuming the antecedent for "itself" is the "largest number divisible by three" (as opposed to the squared number), the squaring and dividing is an identity function. Thus, he is basically taking the largest number divisible by three.

To restrain Mandrake from discussing lusty women, he must roll at least one nine, and no multiples of three larger than 9. For exactly one 9, the probability is P(1 nines, no large x3) = 3[combinations] * 1/20 [p of a 9] * (16/20)^2 [p of the other two rolls being not a 9, 12, 15, or 18] = 0.096 Likewise, P(2 nines, no larger x3)= 3 * (1/20)^2 * 16/20 = 0.006 P(3 nines, no larger x3) = 1 * (1/20)^3 = 0.000 (rounding) So he plays Mandrake 10.2% of the time.

Without going through the rest of the math, one can see by inspection that the probability of invading Hokkaido (option 6) or seeing miller in his BVDs (option 3) has to be smaller than this probability. The first two terms stay the same, but the 16/20 factor for "a different number which is a (non-multiple of 3) (inclusive-or) (is smaller)) decreases. Therefore, the probability of (any of these options) is going to be less than 3*10.2%, i.e., less than 30.6%.

So I believe Wirraway_Ace is correct in saying that Canoerebel does one of these options less than a third of the time, with all the usual caveats (Canoerebel is telling the truth, the die is fair, etc.). Although I acknowledge some possibility of error. I showed you mine, now you show me yours

I didn't take into account any of the other results as only a roll of 3, 6, or 9 will give a valid result on his list. The probability that he rolls a 3, 6, or 9 on a 20-sided die is 3/20 or 15%. Therefore, he will not play any games 85% of the time on any given roll. However, since he rolls 3 times we need to evaluate .85^3, which is 61.4125% of the time. 1 - .614125 = .385875. I don't want to work out the individual probabilities, but shouldn't they all add up to that 38.5875%?

You would be correct if he used any 3, 6, or 9. However, at least as I understood the description, he uses the largest multiple of 3 he rolled. So if he rolled a 9, but then later rolled a 15, the 15 would be used and as there is no entry 15 he would apply not be a variant. So not all 3, 6, and 9 rolls will result in a variant, again to my understanding of the method that I'm quite certain Canoerebel rigorously applies to all his games.

Being that I spend a large fraction of my life playing with numbers...

Canoe said I roll one twenty-sided dice three times, take the largest number divisible by three, square it, and divide by itself.

Assuming the antecedent for "itself" is the "largest number divisible by three" (as opposed to the squared number), the squaring and dividing is an identity function. Thus, he is basically taking the largest number divisible by three.

To restrain Mandrake from discussing lusty women, he must roll at least one nine, and no multiples of three larger than 9. For exactly one 9, the probability is P(1 nines, no large x3) = 3[combinations] * 1/20 [p of a 9] * (16/20)^2 [p of the other two rolls being not a 9, 12, 15, or 18] = 0.096 Likewise, P(2 nines, no larger x3)= 3 * (1/20)^2 * 16/20 = 0.006 P(3 nines, no larger x3) = 1 * (1/20)^3 = 0.000 (rounding) So he plays Mandrake 10.2% of the time.

Without going through the rest of the math, one can see by inspection that the probability of invading Hokkaido (option 6) or seeing miller in his BVDs (option 3) has to be smaller than this probability. The first two terms stay the same, but the 16/20 factor for "a different number which is a (non-multiple of 3) (inclusive-or) (is smaller)) decreases. Therefore, the probability of (any of these options) is going to be less than 3*10.2%, i.e., less than 30.6%.

So I believe Wirraway_Ace is correct in saying that Canoerebel does one of these options less than a third of the time, with all the usual caveats (Canoerebel is telling the truth, the die is fair, etc.). Although I acknowledge some possibility of error. I showed you mine, now you show me yours

I didn't take into account any of the other results as only a roll of 3, 6, or 9 will give a valid result on his list. The probability that he rolls a 3, 6, or 9 on a 20-sided die is 3/20 or 15%. Therefore, he will not play any games 85% of the time on any given roll. However, since he rolls 3 times we need to evaluate .85^3, which is 61.4125% of the time. 1 - .614125 = .385875. I don't want to work out the individual probabilities, but shouldn't they all add up to that 38.5875%?

You would be correct if he used any 3, 6, or 9. However, at least as I understood the description, he uses the largest multiple of 3 he rolled. So if he rolled a 9, but then later rolled a 15, the 15 would be used and as there is no entry 15 he would apply not be a variant. So not all 3, 6, and 9 rolls will result in a variant, again to my understanding of the method that I'm quite certain Canoerebel rigorously applies to all his games.

Ah ha. There's the difference. Your numbers must be right! Although I could approximate by doing .7^3 instead of .85^3 (it's obviously not accurate, but it's more accurate than my previous).

This History major says CR misspoke., He meant a twenty-ONE-sided die. So, do it all again, please.

Show your work.

Assuming it is a fair 21 sided die, the modification to the analysis is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader . But suffice it to say the chances of seeing Miller in his BVDs are reduced somewhat. Which I'm guessing we are all thankful for.

As a dedicated "Sir Robin" follower , I need to chime in here. 1st of all , "Sir Robin" is more of a philosophy than a strategy. At least in AE. It's simply not possible to do the wholesale running that you did in WITP vanilla. The philosophy is more "preservation" than running. And to a large degree it's predicated on the principal that the more resources you save , and train up, and update, the sooner you can start back across the Pacific. One undisputable fact is that at the "turning points" of the Pacific war , the USN stopped then moved against the IJN (that is at Midway and Guadalcanal)with ships that were entirely pre-war builds. These are the ships that you will be using till late 1943, early 1944. So it stands to reason that the more you preserve , the sooner you train them and their crews up, the faster you update them, the sooner you can go on the offensive.

That is not to say that you should not strike if the IJN gives you an opportunity by doing something dumb. Obviously the IJN ships are better trained , and crewed than yours. But if you can catch him in an area that he doesn't have air superiority , and you have larger forces , then go for it.

I have a saying , that "The USA should fight to the very last Dutchman, Brit and Australian". Now I'm not saying I dislike these nations. I am saying 1) generally these ships can not be updated , which makes them "use 'em or lose 'em ships" due to future obsolescence. And 2) they are far more likely to fight to the death for their colonies. I can't imagine the USA will to sacrifice large quantities of ships and troops to defend someone else's colonies. (The Philippines yes. That's a US colony).

Troops generally can't be evacuated , nor can many air groups. Leave them in place , but concentrate them if you can. Always rebuild units if possible. Divisions are for fighting. Companies and Battalions are for policing colonies. Colonial policing ends on Dec 7th.

So what preservation means , is get your warships , in there scattered penny packets , where they are meat on the table , to some rear area where they can assemble into something capable of providing some form of self defense. Your ASW assets (except for some Brit,Dutch and Canadian assets) are pretty poor. Your CV air groups are a joke. And most of your USN ships have potential , but not till they have been re-fitted. Get them out of the front line. Get them out of danger. Untill they can be upgraded , then train them. Especially air groups.

USN fleet boats have tremendous possibilities. Unfortunately , they lack decent torpedoes. So you need to train them so that when the working fish show up , you have experienced crews. Mining missions are good, but you lack mines. So how to use them? While S-boats , Brit and Dutch boats hold the line (especially in shallow waters) the fleet boats can earn their keep in another way. Scouting lines. Every boat should be set out in a deep water , middle of the ocean , far from ASW air patrols scouting line. Don't use them near your bases, that part of the line can be filled in with YMSs , YP's , PC's and other naval patrol craft. Subs have range. Don't use a long range sub where a short ranged asset can work.

You really need to know where the IJN is. Especially the KB. If you can't track the KB , knowing where it isn't is almost as good. Build "fences" between your bases where the Japanese are not likely to invade. On those bases use your PA aircraft. Where you can , supplement them with Hudsons , B-17D's , LB-30's and even B-18s. Scouting is the absolute most important thing for the Allies. You must know where your enemy is so you can most efficiently use your few assets (and more importantly , SAFELY use them). The Japanese are very short on PA aircraft. And most players would much rather use the "Netties" on naval strike then patrol.

Build a fence, then operate your supply ships behind it. You can't fight the KB. You MUST completely avoid it. Keep your lifelines well back, where they can run the second the KB is spotted. And if his smaller units penetrate the fence , then you can set up an ambush (IF it's worth it).

most of what the colleagues have said is true and highly recommended. However, one should also keep in mind that the game has quite some variance in the outcome of battles and encounters. F.e. in my current PBEM game (stock scen #1) the allied subs - including US LR subs - were highly effective against japanese ships. Since May 1942 the LR subs alone have sunk about 30 japanese ships, and hit some more. I was really surprised about their effectiveness.

Another strategy aspect you may want to consider is a "defend Burma" concept. This may work against a cautious japanese player, who puts more emphasis on DEI and the south pacific, than the land war on the subcontinent. As of now f.e. he has yet to cross the rivers to contest the burma road. However, this requires sustantive PP investments in buing out Indian forces, and devoting troops from singers and DEI to India/Burma. But if you´re quick and determined, you can hold there for quite some time, denying him the burmese oil resources.

Of course if you face a highly experienced JFB as your opponent, he will be able to counter these options quite easily. But against new players it may worth a try ...

As a dedicated "Sir Robin" follower , I need to chime in here. 1st of all , "Sir Robin" is more of a philosophy than a strategy. At least in AE. It's simply not possible to do the wholesale running that you did in WITP vanilla. The philosophy is more "preservation" than running. And to a large degree it's predicated on the principal that the more resources you save , and train up, and update, the sooner you can start back across the Pacific. One undisputable fact is that at the "turning points" of the Pacific war , the USN stopped then moved against the IJN (that is at Midway and Guadalcanal)with ships that were entirely pre-war builds. These are the ships that you will be using till late 1943, early 1944. So it stands to reason that the more you preserve , the sooner you train them and their crews up, the faster you update them, the sooner you can go on the offensive.

That is not to say that you should not strike if the IJN gives you an opportunity by doing something dumb. Obviously the IJN ships are better trained , and crewed than yours. But if you can catch him in an area that he doesn't have air superiority , and you have larger forces , then go for it.

I have a saying , that "The USA should fight to the very last Dutchman, Brit and Australian". Now I'm not saying I dislike these nations. I am saying 1) generally these ships can not be updated , which makes them "use 'em or lose 'em ships" due to future obsolescence. And 2) they are far more likely to fight to the death for their colonies. I can't imagine the USA will to sacrifice large quantities of ships and troops to defend someone else's colonies. (The Philippines yes. That's a US colony).

Troops generally can't be evacuated , nor can many air groups. Leave them in place , but concentrate them if you can. Always rebuild units if possible. Divisions are for fighting. Companies and Battalions are for policing colonies. Colonial policing ends on Dec 7th.

So what preservation means , is get your warships , in there scattered penny packets , where they are meat on the table , to some rear area where they can assemble into something capable of providing some form of self defense. Your ASW assets (except for some Brit,Dutch and Canadian assets) are pretty poor. Your CV air groups are a joke. And most of your USN ships have potential , but not till they have been re-fitted. Get them out of the front line. Get them out of danger. Untill they can be upgraded , then train them. Especially air groups.

USN fleet boats have tremendous possibilities. Unfortunately , they lack decent torpedoes. So you need to train them so that when the working fish show up , you have experienced crews. Mining missions are good, but you lack mines. So how to use them? While S-boats , Brit and Dutch boats hold the line (especially in shallow waters) the fleet boats can earn their keep in another way. Scouting lines. Every boat should be set out in a deep water , middle of the ocean , far from ASW air patrols scouting line. Don't use them near your bases, that part of the line can be filled in with YMSs , YP's , PC's and other naval patrol craft. Subs have range. Don't use a long range sub where a short ranged asset can work.

You really need to know where the IJN is. Especially the KB. If you can't track the KB , knowing where it isn't is almost as good. Build "fences" between your bases where the Japanese are not likely to invade. On those bases use your PA aircraft. Where you can , supplement them with Hudsons , B-17D's , LB-30's and even B-18s. Scouting is the absolute most important thing for the Allies. You must know where your enemy is so you can most efficiently use your few assets (and more importantly , SAFELY use them). The Japanese are very short on PA aircraft. And most players would much rather use the "Netties" on naval strike then patrol.

Build a fence, then operate your supply ships behind it. You can't fight the KB. You MUST completely avoid it. Keep your lifelines well back, where they can run the second the KB is spotted. And if his smaller units penetrate the fence , then you can set up an ambush (IF it's worth it).

Just a few points . I hope they might be useful.

Well laid out and reasoned, even if you fall into the more aggressive style of the allied play (as I do) nothing you are saying still can't apply.

As a dedicated "Sir Robin" follower , I need to chime in here. 1st of all , "Sir Robin" is more of a philosophy than a strategy. At least in AE. It's simply not possible to do the wholesale running that you did in WITP vanilla. The philosophy is more "preservation" than running. And to a large degree it's predicated on the principal that the more resources you save , and train up, and update, the sooner you can start back across the Pacific. One undisputable fact is that at the "turning points" of the Pacific war , the USN stopped then moved against the IJN (that is at Midway and Guadalcanal)with ships that were entirely pre-war builds. These are the ships that you will be using till late 1943, early 1944. So it stands to reason that the more you preserve , the sooner you train them and their crews up, the faster you update them, the sooner you can go on the offensive.

That is not to say that you should not strike if the IJN gives you an opportunity by doing something dumb. Obviously the IJN ships are better trained , and crewed than yours. But if you can catch him in an area that he doesn't have air superiority , and you have larger forces , then go for it.

I have a saying , that "The USA should fight to the very last Dutchman, Brit and Australian". Now I'm not saying I dislike these nations. I am saying 1) generally these ships can not be updated , which makes them "use 'em or lose 'em ships" due to future obsolescence. And 2) they are far more likely to fight to the death for their colonies. I can't imagine the USA will to sacrifice large quantities of ships and troops to defend someone else's colonies. (The Philippines yes. That's a US colony).

Troops generally can't be evacuated , nor can many air groups. Leave them in place , but concentrate them if you can. Always rebuild units if possible. Divisions are for fighting. Companies and Battalions are for policing colonies. Colonial policing ends on Dec 7th.

So what preservation means , is get your warships , in there scattered penny packets , where they are meat on the table , to some rear area where they can assemble into something capable of providing some form of self defense. Your ASW assets (except for some Brit,Dutch and Canadian assets) are pretty poor. Your CV air groups are a joke. And most of your USN ships have potential , but not till they have been re-fitted. Get them out of the front line. Get them out of danger. Untill they can be upgraded , then train them. Especially air groups.

USN fleet boats have tremendous possibilities. Unfortunately , they lack decent torpedoes. So you need to train them so that when the working fish show up , you have experienced crews. Mining missions are good, but you lack mines. So how to use them? While S-boats , Brit and Dutch boats hold the line (especially in shallow waters) the fleet boats can earn their keep in another way. Scouting lines. Every boat should be set out in a deep water , middle of the ocean , far from ASW air patrols scouting line. Don't use them near your bases, that part of the line can be filled in with YMSs , YP's , PC's and other naval patrol craft. Subs have range. Don't use a long range sub where a short ranged asset can work.

You really need to know where the IJN is. Especially the KB. If you can't track the KB , knowing where it isn't is almost as good. Build "fences" between your bases where the Japanese are not likely to invade. On those bases use your PA aircraft. Where you can , supplement them with Hudsons , B-17D's , LB-30's and even B-18s. Scouting is the absolute most important thing for the Allies. You must know where your enemy is so you can most efficiently use your few assets (and more importantly , SAFELY use them). The Japanese are very short on PA aircraft. And most players would much rather use the "Netties" on naval strike then patrol.

Build a fence, then operate your supply ships behind it. You can't fight the KB. You MUST completely avoid it. Keep your lifelines well back, where they can run the second the KB is spotted. And if his smaller units penetrate the fence , then you can set up an ambush (IF it's worth it).

Just a few points . I hope they might be useful.

Well laid out and reasoned, even if you fall into the more aggressive style of the allied play (as I do) nothing you are saying still can't apply.

Part of my problem is that I consider every PBEM I play to be a "grade" so to speak. As in 1st grade, 2nd grade. Just like in school , every grade is more challenging than the last. Or at least should be. Consequently , unless I'm mentoring , I always seek out a player who is more experienced or talented than myself. Consequently, every game I play is an up hill fight , and I can pretty much count on the PBEM being a bloody affair (for me that is) where I get my head handed to me until ,the allies reach a point of overwhelming power. So I tend to think of "Sir Robin" as the 1st phase of a Guerilla war as described by Sun Tzu or Mao Se tung. The 1st phase is always about evading the enemy , consolidating your forces and building your strength. Hit him when your opponent is weak , or he does something stupid. Unfortunately the folks I play are NEVER stupid. And they rarely make mistakes. So I don't consider Sir Robin to be so much "cut and run" as assembling your forces. The biggest lesson I've taken home from some of the truly brilliant players that have been good enough to "clean my clock" is "You can't get better if you are dead. You have to survive to improve".

How is the better way to evacuate a base and to destroy it if you want to retire your troops and leave nothing to the incoming enemy? Is it possible?

Amoral is quite correct. It's rarely worth your while to sacrifice engineers to damage a base. Palembang is probably the only real exception.

One thing you can do, if your base has any kind of industrial facility , turn the repair switch "off" before the base is attacked. That will force your opponent to repair any damage he did in taking the base.

If it would be possible to destroy one own facilities (airstrips,factories, supply and oil stocks ) at least at some degree do you think that this feature could enhance or unbalance the game for the allied or japans player or both? ( After all for the ships at anchor in a captured port the game automatically scuttle them).

If it would be possible to destroy one own facilities (airstrips,factories, supply and oil stocks ) at least at some degree do you think that this feature could enhance or unbalance the game for the allied or japans player or both? ( After all for the ships at anchor in a captured port the game automatically scuttle them).

I'm not sure if this would ever be possible (I'm not a software guru) but it would significantly change the character of the game from where it now stands. For one thing it would tremendously slow down the Japanese advance. And the resource cost to Japan would be significant. As it is now , a aggressive Japanese player can sweep through the Pacific and the Indian oceans much faster and further than happened in real life. If you took that away , I think it would demoralize the Japanese players tremendously. "Why am I spending two weeks setting up the 1st turn , and spending all this time micro-managing things for such a little achievement"?

Part of the problem with this game mirroring real life (it doesn't) is that most players who do this game in PBEMs are not incompetent. They are very, very competent. Where I'm sure if one were to quantify history , they'd find something like 75% of the generals in history were not.

So the difficulty is establishing a "balanced" game as opposed to a simulator. A simulator that does everything exactly as real life will never produce the same results because EVERYONE that plays this game devotes far more study to it than the generals did in real life. Crazy isn't it? I've been fortunate (or unfortunate enough depending on your point of view) to sit down with lots of senior serving officers (Including lots of Admirals and Generals) and when the subject of the subject of strategy arose , they were usually quick to change the subject. Clausewitz and Mahan most had heard of , but hadn't studied in years , but mention the names Douhet, Jomini , Colbert , or many other writers that your average player has not only heard of , but often read , their eyes glaze over and they look at you with un asked questions in their eyes. What they really want to ask is "Who?". But instead say "yeah. And how about them Red Soxs?".

But they CAN tell you what forms to use , how to get promoted (AKA "knowing what blocks to get checked") and the latest per diem rates. The really clever ones are up to date on the latest "ethics regs". Generals who glory in military strategy and history today are limited to a few recent examples like Swarzkoft and Franks. Post graduate degrees among such officers are MBA's , political science and economics , not history or lord forbid "military history". My experience has been that the average senior NCO knows far more about military history and strategy that their senior leaders. You are far more likely to see a board war game in a NCO barracks than a BOQ. And "official wargames" are less a test of battle and more of a Choreographed dance which ensures that "everyone" plays by scripting it and forcing players to follow the script. (This is nothing new , both the Japanese and Americans followed "scripted" war games right up till and in the Japanese case , through the war. (The famous pre-midway wargame).

So my point is , in an over long winded way , that most players today are far better than the real life "actors" were. So you need to "dog down" the system for the allies and "speed up" the playability for the Japanese to keep people playing. And I feel that if you allowed the allies to blow up every base you'd over tax Japanese engineering capability. Frankly in the early war the allies just were not that competent. They didn't practice "Sir Robin" which is a disciplined , planned , organize retreat and embraced a "run for your lives" , or "lets just get drunk, we're screwed" attitude. Not always , but often. And allies like the Dutch always seemed to be more afraid of the natives than the Japanese.